More people are concerned about economic unfairness than over regulation.

[blankslate]

Heard about a poll by ABC News and Washington Post in which people were contacted by phone (both people who had landlines and those who only have a cell phone) asked questions about a wide variety of issues and whether or not Obama or the as yet unknown republican candidate would do a better job.

On most of the questions their is basically an almost 45-50 / 45-50 split depending on how many undecideds there are.

Near bottom of the results is the question...

What do you think is the bigger problem in this country – (unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy), or (over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity)?

55 percent thought it was unfairness

35 percent thought it was overregulation.

the rest thought it was both or neither or had no opinion.




What does this mean for 2012 Election if this issue becomes a major focus when people start talking about the economy?


Personally I think this could be an advantage for Obama if people become more aware of the numbers concerning the economy.

For almost the pass 2 years according to the bureau of Labor Statistics there has been a gain in jobs (not enough I agree).

On average "middle class" taxes are lower now than when Obama took office.



What do you think?
Is the poll radically flawed and 55 percent don't really think that economic unfairness is a bigger problem than over regulation?
Can the Republicans avoid this subject well enough if the results are accurate?
Can Obama capitalize on the fact that, as of now, there has more than a year of job growth if the trend continues?

edit.
here's the link.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_011512.html

 

[Cerb]

That poll question is loaded, but since it is a tired GOP talking point, it's not terribly biased, as poll questions go.

The economic unfairness was coming anyway, but it hit fast and hard like it has in large part due to under-regulation.

I can't think of a case in recent memory of reducing or removing regulations that actually was more beneficial than harmful. Good regulations aught to be more streamlined in many cases, but only a handful of government regulations are truly getting in the way, and for only a handful of industries (electricity and gasoline production, FI, where complex multi-layered regulations are being used to tell companies, "NIMBY!").

 

[blankslate]

The phrases are loaded I guess but they are pretty much on the opposite ends in terms of what the Left will say is an issue and what the right will say is the main problem.

How would you have asked the question then? I don't see it as being outrageously leading.

 

[Cerb]

The phrases are loaded I guess but they are pretty much on the opposite ends in terms of what the Left will say is an issue and what the right will say is the main problem.

How would you have asked the question then? I don't see it as being outrageously leading.

It's not that there is a problem with how the question was asked. The biggest problem is of the politicians' own making: a free market is a market with Utopian regulations, which we've never had. How would over-regulation in reality harm growth and prosperity in their advertised fantasy?

 

[blankslate]

Well I suppose the intent of the question was to present both arguments as their supporters would phrase them and then let the person surveyed choose which one they agree with more.

Considered in that way I find the results interesting.

 

[Anarchist420]

Regulations are more harmful than redistribution IMO. Regulations never help the poor. I'll admit that mass redistribution can if it's done correctly, but a regulatory state does not ever help the poor. I'll list several regulations that hurt the poor, although some of them are part of the tax code that regulates:
~Legal tender(enforced via high taxes on gold and silver vs. stocks)/fractional reserve banking.
~minimum wage laws.
~import restrictions that help Big Pharma.
~Patents.
~Stoplights and speed limits.
~excessive tariffs.
~the military industrial complex causes inequality in wealth.
~the prohibition of drugs enriches drug cartels and helps the prison industrial complex. It also prevents many people from working for themselves.
~subsidies to big corporations.
~IRC 1954 that started employer based health insurance.

The 2nd New Deal appeared necessary in part because the first one was so regulatory that it didn't decrease unemployment. However, the redistribution part of the New Deal could not go on forever. Hoover kept employment low by keeping wages high (which was a regulation) when they needed to come way down. Medicare has enriched some doctors more than it has patients all things considered.
The state, even a minimal one, does things that free market does better.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What do you think?

I think this is a result of the bailouts for the big banks (and rich bankers).

How can anybody think it's fair that those banks screw-up and then the govt bails them out. Do we get bailed out?

T.A.R.P. is highly unpopular and it still angers people.

Fern

 

[Doppel]

The findings of this poll please me. Unfairness is at the heart of politics now. Until government starts acting for the greater majority who do not have lobbyists on hand those of us in that greater majority will get the short end.

 

[DesiPower]

people are frustrated and confused, they will say whatever is on their mind that that moment, its does not mean anything people need jobs and worry about feeding their family, all these equality and fairness just depends on what they heard last on TV or radio. We need to stop all business with China, bring all the jobs back, get everyone employed and THEN ask these questions, probably then we will get real answers.

All these polls are just a way of entertainment for the elitists, sitting in some office getting paid by the govt or the media to create more circus. Stop this exploitation.

 

[drebo]

Loaded question is loaded. LOL.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think business or government done well is good. If it's done poorly then it's bad. What do I win?

 

[blankslate]

Do think the fact that economic unfairness is a bigger problem according to 55% will help Obama or that as yet to be determined Republican Candidate?

 

[Rainsford]

Do think the fact that economic unfairness is a bigger problem according to 55% will help Obama or that as yet to be determined Republican Candidate?

I think it would have to be Obama. Economic unfairness USUALLY translates into perceived unfairness compared to those better off, which doesn't tend to favor Republicans. Republicans in particular usually try to sell the idea of such perceived unfairness being "class warfare", which is probably going to turn off people who feel they are legitimately concerned.

 

[Rainsford]

I think this is a result of the bailouts for the big banks (and rich bankers).

How can anybody think it's fair that those banks screw-up and then the govt bails them out. Do we get bailed out?

T.A.R.P. is highly unpopular and it still angers people.

Fern

I find that's interesting as the rare issue that seems to apply more or less equally to lefties and righties. It combines the conservative dislike of government intervention with lefty dislike for rich people getting an unfair advantage.

 

[cybrsage]

Most people do not understand the impact of regulations...they think regulations are only "you cannot dump toxic waste into my drinking water". But most everyone thinks others are getting a better deal than them and they feel it is unfair.

 

[Pulsar]

It's not that there is a problem with how the question was asked. The biggest problem is of the politicians' own making: a free market is a market with Utopian regulations, which we've never had. How would over-regulation in reality harm growth and prosperity in their advertised fantasy?

How would over-regulation harm growth and prosperity? Really? Am I misunderstanding your question?

To put it very simply, when it take a company 20 years to get permits to build something, and billions of dollars in permits that completely invalidate the return on investment....

Or worse, when regulations like over-zealous book keeping requirements hit a small company and they have to pay big money for a professional accounting firm to keep them compliant....

At the same time ANYONE who excels at something ends up being called a cheater. It's called jealousy. It's rampant. One party happens to be excellent at cultivating it.

These are both real world examples that are currently happening.

 

[blankslate]

People who have really excelled due to the nature of their physical or mental talents are not called cheaters...

Michael Jordan

Steve Jobs

Steve Wozniak

Bill Gates

Mark Zuckerberg

yeah people may envy them but generally no one denies that they deserve their success.

 

[tweaker2]

I might add that the folks that scream the loudest about being over-regulated are usually the very ones that create the need for regulations in the first place.

Regulations don't just appear out of thin air. They get created in response to entities and the circumstances these entities create that harm the public in one way or another. Whether it be polluting the environment, or scamming the public out of money, or defrauding the government, gov't regulations are instituted to protect the public at large, even from themselves at times.

Government will step in when entities that affect the health and prosperity of the general public cannot properly regulate themselves. All this hooey about gov't over-regulating businesses is, IMO, businesses being irate over not being able to bilk and endanger the public at will for higher profits.

For irrefutable proof, just look at what happened when Bush/Cheney turned a blind eye and winked with the other and gave businesses free reign over violating any regulations they could get away with and gave business-owned politicians open season on deregulating anything and everything they could swipe an axe at. Result: economic chaos.

Count me in as one of those who plainly see that economic unfairness easily trumps "over-regulation."

 

[Cerb]

How would over-regulation harm growth and prosperity? Really? Am I misunderstanding your question?

Yes. "How would over-regulation of the free market harm growth and prosperity?"

The bolded has never existed outside of fantasy, neither in its proper sense (a market with equal freedom for all participants), nor the Libertarian/GOP dreamworld sense (a market with no interference, beyond backing currency, and protecting property rights). It will never exist outside of fantasy, either. The proper sense requires a perfect ability to know all information, including of the future, and the second is a case that everyone with some sense knows will lead to an economic collapse in very short order.

The GOP loves to talk about free market this, and free market that, but they have yet to try to get us to even the form of 'free market' they espouse (because really, their financial backers don't want even that; they want a plutocracy, with lemon socialism).

Economic unfairness, OTOH, is a talking point grounded in reality.